Scumbag 'nasty party' punishes 'northern' voters !!!

The scumbag 'nasty party' is showing the voters of northern constituencies exactly what they think of them - not much !!!

I wonder how many of those living in those 'Red Wall' constituencies who voted for the scumbag 'nasty party' last December may live to regret their stupid decision !!!


‘Red wall’ seats to take brunt of welfare cuts, as 6 million families set to lose £1,000
Thinktank forecasts Rishi Sunak will be forced to drop plans to remove temporary universal credit boost

Andrew Woodcock
Political Editor
@andywoodcock
3 hours ago
48 commentsSix million households face losing £1,000 in benefits next year unless chancellor Rishi Sunak U-turns on universal credit, with the worst pain felt in some of the “Red Wall” seats which switched from Labour to Conservative at last year’s election, according to a new report.

One in three of all working-age households in Red Wall constituencies across the north of England, West Midlands and Wales are set to lose out, with the proportion rising to almost two-thirds in Blackpool South, and more than two-fifths in Great Grimsby, Bolton North-East, West Bromwich West and Dudley North, said the Resolution Foundation. By comparison, just one-quarter of families in southeast England will lose out.

The think tank forecast that the scale of potential losses to newly-won Tory voters will force Mr Sunak to back down on the withdrawal of a £20-a-week temporary boost to universal credit and working tax credits, just as his predecessor George Osborne did with threatened welfare cuts in 2015.

The £20 additional payment was introduced in the spring in response to the coronavirus crisis and is due to expire in April 2021. But despite warnings that this would cut the incomes of some of the country’s poorest households at a time when unemployment is expected to be high, Mr Sunak did not reprieve it in his Winter Economy Plan last week.

Today’s report, entitled Death by £1,000 Cuts, found that the decision will reduce the generosity of unemployment support to its lowest real-terms level in three decades, and leave the poorest fifth of households facing a huge 7-per-cent income loss next year.

And the Foundation warned that the move will also take £8bn out of the pockets of families most likely to spend it, at a time when healthy consumer spending will be needed to support the economy.


The thinktank’s chief executive Torsten Bell pointed out that one of the loudest Tory critics of Mr Osborne’s plans to cut welfare in 2015 was then-backbench MP Boris Johnson, who called on the chancellor to “make sure that hard-working people on low incomes are protected”.

“Exactly five years ago, then-chancellor Osborne arrived at Conservative Party conference riding high off an election victory, but with backbench trouble brewing over his plan to cut the incomes of over three million households by £1,000,” said Mr Bell.

“A month later he U-turned. Today, chancellor Sunak finds himself in a similar situation, but with two important differences.

‘Flawed algorithm’ used to calculate universal credit forcing people into hunger and debt, watchdog warns

• 
  Universal Credit failing millions as current design ‘punishes poorest’, says Lords report

• 
  Coronavirus: Millions of poorest families to lose £20 a week as Rishi Sunak fails to extend support

“Today the plan to cut household incomes by £1,000 overnight will affect twice as many families. And while the cuts last time were proposed during a period of fast rising employment, it is now increasing unemployment that will provide the backdrop.

“The £20-a-week boost to universal credit and tax credit this year has been a living standards lifeline for millions of families during the pandemic. But allowing the policy to expire next year would be disaster not just for household incomes but for economic policy too as the chancellor seeks to secure a recovery next year.

“It would also be a blow aimed squarely at the 'Red Wall’, with one-in-three working-age households on course to lose over £1,000 next year.

“This policy is bad politics, bad economics and bad for living standards too. The chancellor should act swiftly to extend the boost to universal credit and tax credits beyond next spring.”

Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: “It's unbelievable that the government is considering cutting universal credit in the middle of a jobs crisis, in which they themselves admit 4 million jobs could be lost.

“Families in the North, Midlands and Wales would be hit hard by this cut. We cannot risk condemning parts of the UK back to the dark days of Thatcher, with mass unemployment and families struggling to get by.

“The government must do all it can to strengthen the safety net to prevent families and individuals from sliding further into hardship not cut it during this crisis.”

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Christine Jardine said: "Countless people are facing their lives being turned upside down by this pandemic. The chancellor has a duty to ensure that no-one is left behind, but instead he seems ready to risk mass unemployment.

“The chancellor must wake and see sense. We need to see an extension of the furlough scheme, protection for excluded groups and new investment to create jobs, especially in the green economy.”

A Government spokesperson said: “We’ve invested an extra £9bn in our welfare system to help those most in need through the pandemic, including by increasing Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit by up to £20 a week, as well as introducing income protection schemes, mortgage holidays and additional support for renters.

“The Government will continue to do all it can to support the lowest paid families while focusing on helping people into work. This includes launching the Kickstart Scheme, a £2bn fund to create hundreds of thousands of new, fully subsidised jobs for young people.”

 

Scumbag 'nasty party' being selective with their lock-down policy depending on whether the constituency is 'nasty party' or not !!!


Coronavirus: Government accused of sparing wealthy, Tory voting areas from local lockdowns
Labour raises prospect of ‘political interference’ in decisions over which locations face restrictions

Tom Batchelor@_tombatchelor
16 hours ago

The government has been accused of sparing wealthy and Tory voting areas from local coronavirus lockdowns, while poorer areas of the country with comparatively lower infection rates face tougher restrictions.

Some constituencies in the so-called red wall that switched from Labour to the Tories at the last election have not faced curbs on movement despite recording an increase in cases sufficient to trigger restrictions in Labour-voting areas in the region.

The red-to-blue swing seats of Wakefield in West Yorkshire, with 73 cases of coronavirus per 100,000 population, and Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, with a rate of 112, are both free of additional measures, for example.

But Greater Manchester, home to a swathe of Labour seats, had an average rate of almost 24 per 100,000 when lockdown was introduced earlier in the summer.

According to an email published by The Sunday Times, Professor Dominic Harrison, director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen, wrote to ministers last week warning that “more economically challenged boroughs [were] being placed into more restrictive control measures at an earlier point in their ... case rate trajectory.”

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson says crisis will remain 'bumpy until Christmas and possibly beyond'
He said that had the effect of “exacerbating the economic inequality impacts of the virus...giving an economic ‘double whammy’ to more challenged areas.”

Professor Harrison was responding to figures that showed the government first imposed restrictions on Blackburn with Darwen - one of the poorest areas in the country - when their weekly Covid-19 rate passed 60 cases per 100,000.


Rishi Sunak, and the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, have rates of infection of 73 and 84 respectively but have avoided lockdowns. Those figures compare with a national rate across England of 28.

“Are you more likely to have social lockdowns earlier and for longer and at a lower confirmed case rate if you are a northern, less wealthy, non conservative voting #localgov area?” Professor Harrison tweeted. “Check the data...”

Jim Shorrock, a former Labour mayor of Blackburn with Darwen, said the figures were “confirmation of what some of us have thought for some time”.

Labour said the data raised questions as to why those living in parts of the Midlands and the north were “having to face restrictions when other parts of the country that have seen infections rise are not”.

Liverpool, Warrington and Middlesbrough placed under social lockdown as cases soar
Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "Because there is no clear guidelines as to why an area goes into restrictions and how an area comes out of restrictions then there is a suspicion that there is political interference - I hope there isn't.

"But until the government publish clear guidelines, that suspicion will always linger."


People wear face coverings as they walk along socially distanced floor markings in Cardiff after the Welsh Government placed three more areas of Wales into local lockdown.(PA)
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson told The Independent the Covid-19 incidence rate was “only one of a set of considerations regarding when it is appropriate to impose and release restrictions”.

The spokesperson said: “Decisions are made in close consultation with local leaders and public health experts, informed by the latest evidence from the JBC (Joint Biosecurity Centre) and NHS Test and Trace, PHE and the Chief Medical Officer for England.

“While we recognise how much of an imposition these measures are, they are based on the latest scientific evidence in order to suppress the virus and protect us all while doing everything possible to support the economy.

“We continue to work closely with local authorities and health protection teams and announced £7m funding to support them during this period of further restrictions.”